Talk:Browning Pass / Nōti Raureka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 20 July 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Common name side of the debate proves inconclusive. But the fact that moving to just "Browning Pass" requires good proof that this is the primary topic, which this discussion has not done, makes the original move proposal a non-starter. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Browning Pass / Nōti Raureka → Browning Pass – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH. There are almost no references to this location in media sources, either as "Browning Pass" or as a dual name, but scholarly sources overwhelmingly prefer the proposed title; 25 articles since the name change have used the proposed title, most of which are relevant, while only 8 articles have used both names. Most of these are not relevant, as they are not using a dual name but instead preferring either "Nōti Raureka" or "Browning Pass" and mentioning the other name. No articles use only "Nōti Raureka", so that is not a viable alternative. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - come off it. The scholarly articles are in no way mostly relevant; of the 23 (I only got 24 results, and two were a duplicate):
3 refer to a pass in Antarctica
5 refer to a maritime pass in Canada (including a tourism provider)
2 refer to a person named Browning and are picked up because of wording
3 seem to be referring to a fault and not the pass (but this is ambiguous - I also think these could be a duplicate table)
4 are relevant theses and as such have limited reliability / use
6 are actual articles/books which refer to the pass itself.
Of those that refer to the pass, only one is from the past decade with over half of them within two years of the name change, so they're not really a good indication of modern usage. In contrast, the 8 dual name sources all appear relevant (noting that one is a thesis and one is a DOC brochure), and are more recent (with half coming in the last decade). I'd also note that the other DOC source explicitly states at the front that it is using place names as reported by other documents, not official names. I also question the claim that there are no references to this location, given that New Zealand Geographic, Wilderness Magazine, stuff and the NZ Herald (twice) all use the dual name. In contrast, the only relevant news results for "Browning Pass" both were references to the dual name which I've already provided, and one from a fishing magazine about a monster in Lake Coleridge. Add to this that the dual name is the one used in what few sources we have that relate to WP:WIAN, and frankly I have no idea why this move was even proposed. Turnagra (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those fault source references are referring to this location; considering this, I believe my claim of "most" was accurate.
In addition, as I said the 8 dual name sources aren't actually dual name sources; only two use the dual name, as opposed to mentioning both names. In addition, two of the others clearly prefer "Browning Pass"; one mentions the Maori name only in a Maori language quote, and the other only mentions it in the index. I note that I could not access two of the sources.
As for the news sources: NZGeo says The lake at the top is called Whakarewa (Europeans called it Browning), and the pass in Māori is Nōti Raureka., which is clearly not a use of the dual name. Similarly, the NZ Herald is using the Maori name in reference to a historic name, and following it with the current name: The path Raureka discovered was known as Nōti Raureka (Browning Pass).
The only one that does use the dual name is wildernessmag; I think we can count one media result for each as insufficient to inform our decision; I note I don't have access to the second NZ Herald source, but I assume it is similar to the first. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you count the faults, it's factually inaccurate and misleading to say that most sources were relevant. Further, as we've covered many times before, there are a variety of different conventions to how dual names are written, one of the most common of these is using parentheses. You've been in more than enough of these move requests to know that, so don't try and claim that it's not a use of the dual name.
I'm assuming you're referring to the pressreader article, the relevant paragraph of which is "Most of the Arahura-Styx track was built in the gold rush of the 1860s for exploration, and to connect the West Coast goldfields with Canterbury over Browning Pass/Noti Raureka and via the Wilberforce River." Which is pretty unambiguously a use of the dual name. Turnagra (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13 relevant, 10 not relevant, by your count; most.
In addition, these parenthetical uses aren't variations on the dual name; they are very clearly uses of two different names, as can be seen in the quotes I provided. BilledMammal (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the fault sources can be counted as individual sources as they are simply repackaging the same table from the late 90s. Further, as mentioned above theses aren't reliable sources in the same way that other scholarly sources are. As mentioned before, these are also generally older than the sources which use the dual name, indicating clearly that usage has changed in favour of the dual name.
I'd be willing to concede that the NZ Geo source is not a dual name use, but the NZ Herald ones absolutely are. It does also raise the point though that Nōti Raureka (with or without the macron) has usage in its own right, perhaps you should look at that instead? Or a name which includes both of them and makes it easy for people to find regardless. Turnagra (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second NZ Herald one is, but The path Raureka discovered was known as Nōti Raureka (Browning Pass) is not; it's clearly refer to a former name of the pass (was known as) and following that with the current name for recognizability. It's like saying The city founded on the Thames was known as Londinium (London).
I considered Nōti Raureka when nominating this but it doesn't have enough use to make it a valid title. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SLASH. Clear common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You say exactly the same comment (or a variation of it) on every move request, but nothing about this remotely agrees with what you've said. Could you elaborate? I'd also note that MOS:SLASH is irrelevant as it contains provisions which allow for use in this case, and WP:NZNC requires the use of a spaced slash. Turnagra (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NZNC requires the use of a spaced slash. No, it merely says a spaced slash should be used if this form is used. It does not mandate that this form should be used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I should have been clearer in that I was referring to NZNC requiring a spaced slash for dual names when they are used - that's still more than enough justification for a slash to be used and for MOS:SLASH to be irrelevant.
    You also haven't addressed the other part of my question, which I'd like to hear your take on given your cookie-cutter response whenever dual names are involved. Turnagra (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being American, I do not give a "cookie-cutter response". I give my opinion. Which is that English-language sources favour the English version of the name and that this is English Wikipedia. You not liking that opinion is no reason for you to discount it. Incidentally, for names from non-English-speaking countries I almost always favour using the native language, far more than do most other editors (just in case I'm accused of being someone who refuses to use "foreign" names); however, this does not apply to New Zealand. The version with the oblique is not normal or natural: nobody, for instance, would say "I'm going to Browning Pass slash Nōti Raureka". They'd use one or the other. And on English Wikipedia, the former is obviously the one that should be favoured for an English-speaking country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being American has nothing to do with posting cookie-cutter replies; posting the exact same comment on four move requests in ten minutes does, as well as your two recent ones which have been very slight variations of it. But setting that aside, your response and usage of WP:USEENGLISH makes me think that you haven't actually looked into NZ places all that much. Setting aside that Māori names are incredibly common – we don't talk about the Courtenay River or Port Louis-Philippe anymore – dual names themselves also have a wide degree of usage. Look at Aoraki / Mount Cook, Matiu / Somes Island or Whakaari / White Island. All of these (and others of course) have widely-used dual names. The slash isn't pronounced (obviously) but rather just the chosen orthography by the NZGB, and which WP:NZNC states we should use. I wasn't going to accuse you of refusing to use "foreign" names as you put them, but I think you're misguided in thinking that Māori names and words aren't used in New Zealand English (which, per MOS:TIES, is what we should be thinking about here).
    As for your argument that people in conversation might only say one of the names, that might be right in some instances – just as you might say only "Jacinda" or "Ardern", rather than the full name. That doesn't stop "Jacinda Ardern" from being her name and the title of the article. Turnagra (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because she is know as "Jacinda Ardern" as her full name in English. "Browning Pass / Nōti Raureka" is known as "Browning Pass" as it's full name in English.
    You've also misunderstood the argument. The argument is not that a Maori word cannot be used in the English language, but just because it's a Maori word does not mean it's actually used in the English language. We might not use "Courtenay River" or "Mount Egmont" anymore, but those are provably not the common name in the English language, meaning the English names have changed to "Waimakariri River" and "Mount Taranaki". --Spekkios (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have been known as "Browning Pass" 30 years ago, but recent sources seem to almost exclusively use the dual name. I also don't believe I have misunderstood the argument - there is a pervasive argument which runs throughout these move requests that the addition of a dual name somehow isn't an English name, even in cases where the dual name is unambiguously regularly used in New Zealand English. Conscious or not, I don't think this is helpful and even implicit assumptions about which name will be more common in English by virtue of whether it's English-sounding can inadvertently perpetuate biases. Turnagra (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that isn't true? You've found just four sources that use the dual name. BilledMammal (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, you found eight yourself - all but one of which were more recent than the majority of relevant sources which just used "Browning Pass". Turnagra (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found eight articles that mentioned both names. Of them, only two used the dual name; of the rest, two used Browning Pass and mentioned the Maori name, two used the Maori name in reference to historical events and mentioned the current name, and two I couldn't access. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When the common name of a location is not the dual name, it is extremely unlikely that the dual name will be regarded as a single English name, rather than an English name and a Maori name. --Spekkios (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear common name in English-language sources. You are right. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Māori-language Wikipedia. But as far as New Zealand is concerned, that ship sailed long ago. The "[English name] / [Māori name]" format is now well established in the English-language Wikipedia. Angusta (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For certain situations where consensus determines its the best name, yes. Certainly not by default. --Spekkios (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this page uses New Zealand English, which includes a large vocabulary derived from Māori Somej (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean "Browning Pass / Nōti Raureka" is the name this page should be at. --Spekkios (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, the lack of any coherent or convincing argument against it does. Turnagra (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the coherent and convincing policy-based arguments against the current name. --Spekkios (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments made thus far are neither, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Turnagra (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realise you were the authoritative source on argument strength. --Spekkios (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Browning pass already redirects here and I see no reason why that shouldn't be the name of this article. --Spekkios (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Browning Pass has only redirected here for a couple months, since nom moved a page there (presumably to give greater weight to this move when they inevitably proposed it). Before that, it was related to the pass in Antarctica. Turnagra (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an assumption. The edit note was that this Browning Pass is the primary topic, which it probably is. Regardless, the amount of time the redirect has been pointed here is irrelevant. "Browning Pass" redirects here and there is no good reason not to use that name as the page name. --Spekkios (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're more likely to find that there is no primary topic given the numbers of the articles BilledMammal posted above, in which case Browning Pass should probably be a disambiguation page. Turnagra (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember that move, but I believe I based it on the fact that this Browning Pass is the primary topic by usage, with ten times the views. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that isn't remotely the case – until this move request the pages were averaging three hits a day between them, far too low to make any proper argument that either is the primary. Turnagra (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clear common name. In the same way that United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can reasonably be called United Kingdom, we can CONCISEly fold any rare usage of the dual name into the shorter, more common name. — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per the comprehensive argument set out by Turnagra. I do not believe there is a WP:COMMONNAME or MOS:SLASH argument to be made here, as the common name argument appears to, in fact, lie with the dual name, and I was under the impression that MOS:SLASH did not apply to NZ dual names. Regardless, with the existence of Browning Pass in Antarctica, I believe the most appropriate name for this page is the current dual name. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The dual name is a WP:NATURAL disambiguation with Browning Pass (Antarctica) and Browning Pass (Canada). With the geography already obscure enough that only so few articles show up at all, it does not make sense to declare Browning Pass / Nōti Raureka as the primary topic. Furthermore, there is very little argument to warrant changing from the existing title. Conciseness, in my opinion, doesn't apply if this is not demonstrably the primary topic in comparison to other uses. Turnagra's breakdown of the initial Google Scholar shows, if anything, that there is no clear primary topic with the NZ one only 1 article more than the Canada one (which is even lacking an article at all). EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This search might help: [1]. There are a couple of candidates, though I can’t tell exactly how suitable each photo might be—clearly the Wilberforce is the more appealing photo: — HTGS (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Browning_Pass_/_Nōti_Raureka&oldid=1199752945"